The idea of Clingan having all star potential definitely does revolve around his defense. I think he can become an elite anchor, and is a legit game changer on that end, like Gobert-lite (he’s not as fluid as Rudy).
The numbers for UCONN with him on the court have been special the past two seasons, he makes a huge impact. Last year he was number 1 in adjusted team eff margin in the NCAA, this year he is still number 3, while playing a much bigger role, UCONN a top 10 defensive team both years he's been there, and weren't top 50 the year prior.
I think he can give you more offensively than Rudy offensively though. He’s a very good passer out of the high post and finds cutters really well. He rarely makes mistakes. 13% AST and only 8.8% TO rate, almost at 2:1 AST/TO ratio, he’s at 1.9.
Also, and this goes for the Carter ranking too, I value production very highly. I’ve come to believe it’s an important part of the risk reduction for drafting busts. As a general foundational rule, my opinion is that if a player does not have elite production in college (or overseas) they are unlikely to do so in the nba. The logic is basically that good players in the nba were very good in their prior league, and the best predictor of future success is past success. So, that knocks a few guys down for me who are much higher on consensus boards, and leaves less people to put in front of guys like Clingan and Carter. Of course there are exceptions, but I think people fall too in love with what the player could be compared with the reality of who they are. I think I actually read something similar from you earlier. And I can’t really argue against Clingan’s production for the past two seasons. He’s been elite BPM wise both years and all his metrics are outstanding.
I know it’s not a ‘sexy’ pick, and the current meta is to take centers later and take wings and guards early, but I’m still of the opinion I would rather take good centers before mediocre wings and guards, and this class has a lot of the latter imo.
As for Carter, he’s just too productive to have much lower for me. I made the mistake of having Podz lower than I wanted last year, and it kept me leaving him outside the top 10. I won’t make the same mistake for Carter this time. He's so solid across the board and on both sides of the ball
https://www.espn.com.au/nba/insider/story/_/id/39749249/nba-rookie-power-rankings-victor-wembanyama-reigns-supreme-chet-holmgrenJust as a reference, ESPN put this out today, the rookie power rankings up to this point in the season
1. Wemby
2. Chet
3. Lively
4. Podz
5. Jaquez/ Miller
6. Miller / Jaquez
Now, I would say it’s likely this list changes through the years etc (not the top 2), but this reinforces my current thinking. The top two were not in the NCAA last year, but Wemby was MVP of an overseas league at 18 and Chet had 14.1 BPM (5th highest all time for a freshman).
So Lively, Podz, Jaquez and Miller were all in the NCAA last year. Even if we do something as simplistic as simply ranking last years NCAA class by their BPM, you would get the following list.
So all four of these ESPN listed guys were in the top eight for the class BPM wise, and two others were seniors who are already role players on their teams (Sasser and TJD). Clark tore his achilles and hasn't played and Picket hasn't done much for the Nuggets. But still, I think you could make an argument that Lively/Podz/Jaquez/Miller/TJD/Sasser potentially make up 6 of the 8 non Wemby/Chet spots in the top 10 rookies this season.
So yeah, thats a general note on why some guys have a huge variance between my board and the consensus board, guys like Risacher/Sarr/Williams are penalised, guys like Sheppard, Clingan, Flip, Carter, CMB, Holmes II are pushed up